timeEd32

That would be the day I ignored the World Cup entirely.

This has to be said by someone who did not witness the shambles of the cricket world cup in the Caribbean. Not aware of the cricket, but I can't imagine that this would be anything other than an unmitigated disaster.

It was official. Here's a link from when they announced they were dropping the policy: http://www.cnn.com/2007/SPORT/football/10/29/switzerland.cup/index.html The rule is a continent can't apply to host if it has hosted one of the previous two. South America is in play for 2026, although as someone mentioned they may have their sights set on Argentina/Uruguay for 2030. That would essentially make it Africa vs. USA for 2026.

I thought they got rid of the rotation policy and the only limit is that the continental confederation hasn't hosted either of the last two? So South America would be eligible again.

Why can't South America bid for 2026? I do think the USA is in great shape for that one though.

Sports Illustrated's Grant Wahl says on Twitter: "Qatari delegation members getting handshakes & some hugs from FIFA voters."

Wasn't this known already?

9 changes from the weekend's side. Imagine the reaction on here if we had a chance to go to the semifinal with the kindest QF draw only for Hughton to throw it away.

The 18 potential cities are Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, New York (NJ), Phoenix, San Diego, Seattle, Tampa, and Washington, D.C. Indy would stand a good chance with no Chicago or Detroit in the mix.

Meerkats decide Second City Derby winner... http://www.birminghammail.net/multimedia/sport/birmingham-city/video/2010/11/30/meerkats-decide-who-will-win-second-city-derby-97319-27740881/

We could go back and forth on this all day so I'm just going to stop here. Also, I think we're using two completely different meanings for redundant. I'm certainly not going to pretend to be an authority of stadiums in Korea/Japan, but the stadiums the US will have on offer are not too shabby. Just three that would likely be used. New Meadowlands Stadium in New Jersey (close to NYC) - brand new this year http://images.nymag.com/images/2/daily/2010/04/20100412_nms_560x375.jpg New Cowboys Stadium in Dallas - brand new, cost over a billion dollars, the HD video screen is 60 yards long http://uvtblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Inside-Cowboys-Stadium-Fisheye.jpg University of Phoenix Stadium in Arizona - this one is four years old http://www.cocktailmatch.com/users/156/blog/University%20of%20Phoenix%20Stadium.jpg

Please tell me where I said it's a joke if Portugal, Spain, Russia, Belgium or the Netherlands get it before England does. Although I might argue Spain.

I'm not talking about countries that haven't had it before. I never said England deserves it ahead of Russia, Qatar, Australia, or any country that hasn't had it before. I do think there should be some logic in an order for countries that have had it (assuming they can handle hosting it again). For example, I think it would be ridiculous if France or Germany hosted again before England or Spain.

Not really as they're not in the same bid group, so it's a bit redundant claiming it'd be a joke if they got it when they're not up against the same competition. I'm aware they're not bidding against one another. Not sure how it's "redundant" either. Just commenting in general - England '66, USA '94, and Korea/Japan '02. Which of those three should get its next turn first?

Hope the USA wins in 2022 since there would be games 30 minutes from my house, but it's a bit of a joke if the US or Korea/Japan get another World Cup before England does.

What an absurd inference. Seriously. He's clearly cheaper than Given, so they can save some money. It's a good sign as they obviously feel their not losing much quality by sticking with Forster.

We'd be in the Championship right now though, and in much more of a mess than any other time during the last 3 years. Yup. As of now, going down was probably better than staying up.

I used to feel that way. However, I'm sick of teams not taking it seriously until the semifinal/final. If Man United played the same team that beat Blackburn then they most likely would have won tonight. It's their choice not to of course, but I hate when they field a weak team and still get to Wembley. Hoping for a Villa/Birmingham v. West Ham final or something similar. It wasn't that weak, actually a strong side. They sat van der Sar, Evra, Vidic, Ferdinand, Nani, Berbatov, and Rooney. How is that a strong side?

We probably would have lost to Wigan.

I used to feel that way. However, I'm sick of teams not taking it seriously until the semifinal/final. If Man United played the same team that beat Blackburn then they most likely would have won tonight. It's their choice not to of course, but I hate when they field a weak team and still get to Wembley. Hoping for a Villa/Birmingham v. West Ham final or something similar.

Not the best place for this, but is Forster definitely better than Krul? Never seen Forster.

At this rate he's going to cost a small fortune next season.

Johnny Evans.

What happened to Moses?